Problemo, funeral pics comparison

Well I hit a snag and stumbled onto an unforeseen.... thing. I was all set to do a big pic comparison post of the TWO funeral pics (Some Together/Liberian Girl) and in the process of pulling them into paint to cut n paste and circle n such.... I found the oddest thing.

Here's the pics I was working with, the two pics framed on stage flanking the coffin:

I was studying them to expose and illustrate the differences between the two faces. Blah blah blah, there are several stark differences in their faces, examples:-Pic 1 has a dimpled chin where pic 2 does not.-Pic 1's nose bridge is significantly more narrow then pic 2's.-Pic 1 and pic 2 illustrate the same height... even though pic 1 is leaning/slouching and pic 2 is not. How's that work? (Credit this observation to Anonymous friend who pointed it out to me. Anonymous may ID themselves for credit if Anonymous would like else Anonymous is outa luck and better zip it)-The eyeliner on the bottom lid does not match from pic 1 to pic 2. Weird as I do not find it plausable that a photoshoot was stopped mid stream to alter eyeliner unless something was awry in which case the pics taken prior to corrections would be dumped.-Pic 1's face has several small thin lines in the skin surrounding the mouth that are not consistant with age lines. These lines could have been removed from pic 2 but for two reasons this is not plausable. Reason one, both of these pics are promo pics and touch ups would be expected to be applied to both pics. Reason two, Michael was a ~30yo non smoker in these pics, so why are the lines present at all.

So I decided to pull these pics into paint to crop and highlight these features to communicate my findings. This is where I got stuck in this project. THIS is why:I have NOT altered this pic in any way other then to zoom and crop.

Look at the lines, horizontal and verticle that appear in the pixilation in certain spots here. One line runs verticle nearly bisecting the nose, another runs horizontal above the eye but *almost* below the eyebrow. Still another runs horizontal above the top lip. For ease of viewing I have highlighted the location of these lines in the next pic.

So I started scrolling around the pic. I found more lines.Here we have two horizontal lines. One runs through the shirt collar and the other runs through the hair above the line of his shoulder, parallel with the bottom of his chin. Again, highlighted locations:

Further scrolling resulted in one more location. The earbode, middle, center appears to have been altered this time with a clear, tiny square of copy/paste work.Again for viewing ease:

Now to lay it out in plain english. These are the lines that result when I shop a pic. When you shop, you cut and paste areas, usually squares, usually progressively smaller in size, from one image to another, usually in magnify mode, to alter the appearence of a full sized photo. You put it together like a patchwork quilt to hide any clear, obvious horizontal or verticle lines that result from this process, but at some point you have to quit while you're ahead and some lines will remain in the finished product. But, if you do it right, these lines will only be visible in magnification mode which is the mode in which you will do your work.

Problem is, I didn't touch this pic. I pulled several other pics into paint and magnified them and NONE of them came up with lines like this. On the contrary, every other pic I pulled into paint and magnified pixilated evenly. This pic pixilates evenly everywhere else except for the locations I laid out here. I even pulled the original into jpeg and resaved twice in case something went funny with the file during the save process. Each time the result was the same. Lines in the same locations.

I ENCOURAGE you to pull the original into paint and magnify it and see it for yourself so you know I'm not F'ing with you. Go pull it elsewhere off the web if you like. It blew my mind and everytime I did it the results were the same.

What does it mean?Well, I don't know for certain but to me the answer is quite clear. This pic was put together like a patchwork quilt. The reason as to why is not quite as obvious. I have my own ideas but I'll not taint your mind with them. All i'll say is this. This pic was taken during the Bad era, shortly after Michael altered his appearance dramatically and shocked the world with it. This is the era where we began to be systematically trained to accept Michael's significant and frequent changes of appeareance.

Bec,you super sleuth, you! Thanks for sharing your expertise in photo-shop with us. I know nothing about this art so am glad when those who do point all of it out. I, personally would like to hear your comments on this matter and why you think this photo was used (generated) etc. That is why we are all here and I think that everyone's thoughts/feelings may contribute to finding the truth in all of this. If uncomfortable posting your response, please pm me. Thanks.

Again, thanks for the informative post. Keep up the great investigative work!

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Logged

Michael SupporterBe the change you wish to see in the world.~Mahatma Gandhi

I was thinking the same thing. Maybe they are 2 different people. It could just be the different pose or angle, but if you REALLY LOOK at the two photos, you can see some subtle differences. I don't know what the reason for it would be, but it is possible. I am so confused! :roll:

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Logged

I am obsessed with a man I have never met, yet, I feel like I have known him forever.

I must admit that I think that the second picture just looks odd to me. The shape of his head. It just looks like something is not quite right. To me it looks as though his head has been superimposed into it.

Good find though on the 'patchworking' of the first pic. :)

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Logged

"Michael, I am here for you always. I give you my heart, my soul and I offer you my friendship."

@Bec, I see what you speak of about the patch work when you zoom in on a photo. I play around in photoshop as well. EX: when you to remove an object from a picture then you have a task of repairingthe area...i see it on the above photo of the ear...good work

You had a lot of work with that, and I feel bad to write that...BUT: I work with Photoshop and pics a lot and these line are a result of the zoom, respectively the down-calculation for the low resolution. They're always there, if you zoom in a low resolution pic.When you have a pic in a resolution of 72 dpi (dots per inch) and zoom in, Photoshop will calculate to fill the pixels. Because, Photoshop can't perform miracles on something, that's not there.I don't know exactly, how the grid at 72 dpi is calculated, but at zooming into a this pic with 72dpi, you'll always see squares, that hold the pixels. So one square is 8 px high and wide. You can see it on the pic I posted below.

Look, what great job Photoshop does, when you zoom in to a pic - this is, what Photoshop had to deal with in this case:it just looks so real in the zoom, because Photoshop does the calculation so well - Photoshop doesn't know, how Michael Jackson looks like!

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Logged

________________________________________________________A revolution without dancing is a revolution not worth having.________________________________________________________

Oh my god, nice work. My opinion? I think his face was patched up from another photograph and placed onto this one. I dont know when this photo was originally released but I dont understand the idea of why they would photoshop a photo of him. Have they been cutting and pasting old and new Michael? Impersonator? To hide flaws? To show us this is as fake as the concept of the movie? But why would they photoshop it? I dont understand any of this.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Logged

JUST BECAUSE YOU READ IT IN THE MAGASINE OR SEE IT ON THE TV-SCREEN DONT MAKE IT FACTUAL.

Yes, Ninanina, that's the point. The pixilation upon magnification is equal (and normal) elsewhere in both photos save for these lines. Please read my post again, I know it is long but I did address your concern.

What does it mean? It means this pic was shopped. I haven't any idea as to motive here except to apply the standard motive for shopping a pic; to make a photo appear to contain something that it doesn't.

Yes, Ninanina, that's the point. The pixilation upon magnification is equal (and normal) elsewhere in both photos save for these lines. Please read my post again, I know it is long but I did address your concern.

What does it mean? It means this pic was shopped. I haven't any idea as to motive here except to apply the standard motive for shopping a pic; to make a photo appear to contain something that it doesn't.

So you think it was a double and they shopped it to make a more convincing Michael?

I definitley see the differences in the pictures of MJ. For one not only that but the flowers he is holding look dead! If you recall the picture from the burial and memorial have white lillies right? So how did the family do that! Had to be altered as this person has pointed out in the photo shop explanation. Also, I have always, always, wondered why the family selected this particular photo of MJ? I am not understanding it as MJ had several pictures througout his life! Hell, I mean he was 50 at the time! Now in this photo that the family has selected MJ is in his 30" s correct? This just floors me! I know part of the reason may be because of the liberiangirl theme but..... I keep feeling there is a much deeper reason than the liberian girl theme? I just cant figure it out! Does white lillies symbolize life? IDK :| :|

That's a good point mjboogie. I just can NOT imagine Katherine going through trying to decide on pics to use and coming to this set and saying "oh YES YES, these are the perfect ones! Yes, my 50yo son, father of three young children, Michael the SEX BOMB.... that's just how I want his closest friends and family to remember him, as the SUPER HOT, LEATHER PANTS CLAD PIECE OF PELVIS THRUSTING MEAT..."

That's a good point mjboogie. I just can NOT imagine Katherine going through trying to decide on pics to use and coming to this set and saying "oh YES YES, these are the perfect ones! Yes, my 50yo son, father of three young children, Michael the SEX BOMB.... that's just how I want his closest friends and family to remember him, as the SUPER HOT, LEATHER PANTS CLAD PIECE OF PELVIS THRUSTING MEAT..."

Yeah no.

LOLLLLLLL!!! You're funny :lol: Thanks for posting this, bec.I have no idea what it means.I'm trying to visualize the purpose...but i came up with nothing.For me it doesnt make sense that they shoped a double to look like him. I mean...why would someone in their right mind do this? Why not just pick the original photo of the cover?If we compare the two of them ( like Souza did) this one he looks natural, without airbrush, while in the original one he seems to be airbrushed. Was airbrushing possible in the 80`s? Cause I remember Michael talking in an enterview or something about how his Bad album cover had been airbrushed in the eye area. He was saying they took away all his litlle imperfections.

Now i'm wondering if there is something in which we could 100% believe. It seems like Michael's life was a SF story with army of impersonators , doubles, decoys, false identities a.s.o. I cannot comment these pics because I'm totally outside the subject but both of them are strange and unnatural to me. Please believe me, every passing day make me wonder if I really know who Michael J.Jackson was. It's already frustrating.Anyway , thank you for your well documented post.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Logged

The Truth is like the Sun, You can shut it out for a time, but it ain’t goin’ away” Elvis Presley

*Mo*

So you think it was a double and they shopped it to make a more convincing Michael?

In my opinion: No. Souza and I layered up this photo and the Liberian Girl single cover, and it's the same person. We tend to believe that this photo was taken years later, it might even be a recent photo. If you keep that in mind and look closely at this photo, you will realize that Mike really didn't change that much...

Was airbrushing possible in the 80`s? Cause I remember Michael talking in an enterview or something about how his Bad album cover had been airbrushed in the eye area. He was saying they took away all his litlle imperfections.

I read somewhere once that 'airbrushing' was done on photos of movie stars decades ago like Marilyn Monroe! They used to scratch parts off the negatives before developing or paint ink on them to make them look better! If you search photo manipulation on wikipedia it's pretty interesting! :)

From the pics posted, here are some differences I observed as well.Please let me know if I'm totally off base?

1)Hair - the hair in the top pic has slightly thicker curls as opposed to the stringier ones in the bottom. Also the curl hanging down on MJ's forhead in the 1st pic is thicker than in the 2nd one.

2)Eyes - His eyes in the 1st pic seem heavier, more tired. His right eye is a little more closed and as already noted, the eyeliner may be thicker and/or darker on the top pic than on the bottom pic. Also, the bottom pic his eyes just seem more.... youthful? Optimistic? The top pic seems more mature in a way?

3)Eyebrows - His right eyebrow in the top pic seems a little fuller and rounder than on the bottom pic. Now, on the bottom pic, his left eyebrow seems slightly fuller so I would think that maybe it was flipped, but it's still not as full or round as in the top pic. Also, the rest of the pic isn't flipped, so why only flip the eyes/eyebrows?

4)Fingernails - To me, his fingernails in the top pic are darker than in the bottom pic. If you see other pics from the BAD era, his fingernails are lighter, not as discoloured.

How'd I do? :geek: :lol:

edited to add: when you close up on the top pic, the angles of his jaw line are more pronounced and there are some skin folds on the neck and where the jaw meets the neck on his left(our right) hand side. Not to mention the light lines on his neck and face. I'm in my 30s with no plastic surgeon in sight and I don't have those. :? I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have had them in his 30s either.....